Because wireless is by its very nature mobile and also because its high-tech, Congress decided that the old way of doing things based on geographic territories and rate base/rate of return regulation didn’t make any sense. But even more importantly, Congress decided that wireless would be a national industry, regulated at the federal level and that competition – not regulation – would govern the marketplace. This occurred in 1993, and as we discussed earlier, after that point wireless took off – I mean jumped off the charts.
So, my simple message to members of Congress is…you did the right thing 13 years ago. Wireless is an enormous consumer success and that success is due to the fact that wireless is national in scope and lightly regulated. The competition model is clearly a winner for the American consumer.
If I could, I want to spend just a second on some of those obstacles that I mentioned before. The biggest threat facing wireless faces is from the potential disintegration of that national regulatory framework I spoke of. And specifically what I mean by that is the increasing desire of states to regulate wireless service.
If a highly competitive and highly innova-tive national service like wireless is all of a sudden regulated fifty different ways in fifty different states, at least two things will hap-pen. First off, costs will definitely go up because carriers will now have to set up 50 different business operations and systems across the country instead of having just one. Second, innovation will be at risk because the carriers would have to shift resources and focus to comply with reams of state-by-state regulation. You can’t regulate wireless in the same fashion you regulate the phone that’s stuck to the wall of your kitchen and still expect it be innovative and cost efficient. You just can’t have it both ways.
Wireless Wave: This sounds like a speech you may have given before. Is it fair to say that this issue is the industry’s top priority in 2006?
Steve Largent: Without a doubt.
